 Watchmen promotional poster. Image - Warner Bros.
SAN ANTONIO – After seeing “Watchmen,” I can understand why Alan Moore, author of the award-winning graphic novel, refused to be associated with the film by name. Gone are some of the most important aspects of Moore’s original story, leaving an experience that is a hollow shell of the original material – a film that mangles Moore’s vision so completely that the two are comparable in only the most superficial ways. (Related: "Watchmen" review.)
- How the film remained true
When the film mirrored the story of the original, it did so in an almost fanatical way. Many scenes were panel-by-panel translations of the graphic novel. The same is true of the dialogue, which is a good thing, given Moore’s ability to create poetry in those little speech bubbles. Also like the book – and most of Moore’s other work – the film contained numerous Easter eggs that furthered the plot, from a newscast about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that plays in the background as two of the heroes attempt to have sex, to headlines on newspapers about war that, to the less detail-oriented, are mere props.
- How the film destroyed the story
Sadly, the faithfulness of the film to the original is overshadowed by two words: squid monster.
The plots of both the film and the novel hinge on the revelation that the impending threat on all of humanity is not nuclear war but a nefarious conspiracy engineered by Ozymandias, the retired superhero and “smartest man in the world,” to present a threat so mind-blowing that the entire world must abandon hostilities to face it together. The similarities end there, however.
In Moore’s original, Ozymandias sequesters a group of scientists and artists on an unknown island, uses their abilities to create a giant psychic squid monster, kills his human helpers, and then teleports the monster to New York. When it dies after teleportation, it sends out a psychic blast that kills hundreds of thousands and drives others mad. Upon seeing what they assume to be an extraterrestrial threat, the world unites, achieving the peace Ozymandias desired all along.
In the movie, Ozymandias somehow harnesses Dr. Manhattan’s power over the very forces of nature (with Manhattan’s help) and uses it to unleash a wave of nuclear destruction across the world. World leaders then unite, thinking they are under direct attack from Dr. Manhattan and making me wonder, “What the hell?”
Without the squid monster, Ozymandias in the film is nothing more than a mad scientist.Without the squid monster, Ozymandias in the film is nothing more than a mad scientist. In the novel, however, he is a brilliant strategist who carefully orchestrates the impossible to unite the world. The distance between these two characters is so staggering that it completely undermines the fantastic nature of Moore’s original conclusion.
When the squid monster is removed, the rest of the story falls apart. Without it, there’s no need to include anything about “The Black Freighter,” a fictional comic book written by one of the artists Ozymandias employs that is featured heavily in the graphic novel. Gone too are the many technological advances, such as hydrants used to recharge electric cars, that made Moore’s vision of an alternate 1985 so intriguing. In the book, those advances were achieved using Dr. Manhattan’s amazing abilities; in the movie, Ozymandias is only just beginning to explore those same abilities. What we’re left with, then, is a vision of a 1985 that is not dissimilar to the one many of us lived through, further dulling one of the more impressive aspects of the original text.
There are other problems with Ozymandias. The Ozymandias of the film, portrayed by Matthew Goode, is a scrawny, annoying pipsqueak, in contrast to the buff, all-American hero we saw on the page. While it takes some suspended disbelief to accept the superhuman strength of the characters in the first place, seeing Goode manhandle people in fight scenes was laughable, at best. And if you’ve read the book, laughing at Ozymandias would be the last thing on your mind.
- What the film did that the graphic novel couldn’t (or didn’t)
Despite its flaws, some of the film’s elements could never be (or weren’t) portrayed on a page.
1. Artist Dave Gibbons did a fantastic job of portraying Rorschach’s ever-changing mask in the original, but seeing it in action on screen was nothing short of amazing. The constantly flowing ink blot was one of the most incredible effects in the film, not because it represents a breakthrough in computer-generated imagery, but because it brought to life the Rorschach that previously only lived in the reader’s imagination.
There’s a reason “Watchmen” has been called unfilmable: it is.2. The fight scenes were impressive feats of choreography that emphasized the near-superhuman strength of the heroes (and villains) more than the panels of the original ever could. Seeing Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II brutally dispose of a gang of thugs was visually satisfying and provided the context necessary to believe that the flawed protagonists were, at one point, indispensible tools in cleaning out the underworld.
3. Though you saw it on occasion in the book, Dr. Manhattan’s blue, radioactive genitalia seemed much more prominent in the movie. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether that’s a good or a bad thing.
There’s a reason “Watchmen” has been called unfilmable: it is. There is no way any director or writer could translate the brilliance of Moore’s nuanced and multilayered story to the big screen – there is simply too much material to deal with. Despite the film’s redeeming qualities, the absence of the squid monster takes away many of the most important parts of Moore’s story. What’s left is certainly watchable, but it is far from visionary. In the end, the hollow film arrives much like T. S. Eliot said the world would end: not with a bang, but a whimper.
[Front page image from Watchmen official site]
Branden Hart, TheSequitur.com managing editor, works as an editor in San Antonio.
|
Culture 
.jpg)
